Anagram & Information om | Engelska ordet ACTUS

Exempel på hur du använder ACTUS i en mening

• Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act and to have actually committed the act (actus reus).
• In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus ("guilty act") before the defendant can be found guilty.
• This case stipulates the mens rea and actus reus elements required to be proven by the prosecution for a successful conviction.
• The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law are derived from a principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in thought and action.
• Whereas in the law of agency, a principal may retrospectively adopt a transaction as if the agent had originally been authorised to conclude an agreement with a third party ("ratification" of the agent's decision), and so acquires liability under that agreement, an alleged criminal cannot retrospectively adopt an actus reus and acquire guilt.
• In the criminal law, both a culpable mens rea and a criminal actus reus are generally required for an offense to occur.
• The mens rea and actus reus of the crime are similar to that for common law assault and/or battery, but with an additional element of "indecent circumstances".
• To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence).

• Mando tibi, ut emas mihi domum Seianam centum; & tu Titianam maioris valoris emis minori pretio centum; affectio mandantis est incerta re, quia de gustibus non est disputandum; merito non valet actus, & præfertur voluntas interesse nummario; quod ego non negabo; dico tamen, quòd dum Dominus assentit vassallo, ut vendat; principaliter eius intentius est, prodesse vasallo; nisi aliud appareat ex circumstantiis concurrentibus; & tunc ubi aliud non appareat, potest actus explicari à vassalo alio modo, quo fuit permissus; ut bene probatur ex d.

• The normal rule for establishing criminal liability is to prove an actus reus accompanied by a mens rea ("guilty mind") at the relevant time (see concurrence and strict liability offenses as the exception to the rule).
• In R v DeSousa, the Court had rejected the claim that there must be symmetry between all actus reus and mens rea elements.
• Additionally, Justice Stewart's opinion, in combination with Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize behavior in the absence of a guilty act, or actus reus.
• The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
• the policy that caused State A to criminalise the given actus reus must justify a prosecution even though no actual injury or damage has been sustained to a person resident within the territory of State A.
• In relation to the issue which engaged the Court of Appeal, Millett J followed the House of Lords' decision in Colonial Bank v Cady and Williams (1890) 15 App Cas 267, and held that the proper law to determine the validity of the transfer was the law of the place of the transfer (the lex loci actus), which was New York law.
• While the ICTY judges found that while there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide (actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent (mens rea).
• Automatism is arguably the only defence that excludes responsibility by negating the existence of the actus reus which uniquely allows it to be a defence to both conventional and strict liability offences (although this argument could be extended to the status defence of insanity, too).
• To incur liability for a crime, a person must have both committed a prohibited act (the actus reus, which must be willed: see automatism) and have had an appropriate mental element (the mens rea) at the relevant time (see the technical requirement for concurrence).
• If the first incident merely damaged B's leg so that he could not move, it is tempting to assert that C's driving must have been the more substantial cause and so represents a novus actus breaking the chain.
• For recklessness, a subjective test is applied to determine whether accused wilfully took an initial action that is inherently risky (such as drinking alcohol) but an objective test is applied to determine whether the commission of the actus reus could be foreseen (by a reasonable person).

Förberedelsen av sidan tog: 114,41 ms.